“Birther” is a “hateful insult”

So says NewsBusters, a self-described web site dedicated to combatting “liberal bias” in the media.

It was on the Morning Joe program on MSNBC where Thomas Roberts called Senator Ted Cruz a “birther” — not just a birther but “big on the birther movement.” As far as I know, Ted Cruz is not a birther.

Now it’s not me who’s calling this an “insult” but rather NewsBusters itself:

No one on the panel bothered to correct Roberts’ disgusting commentary, and instead sat idly by as the liberal MSNBC host desperately tried to connect Cruz to birther Donald Trump.

Other than the fact that Roberts mentioned that Donald Trump discussed Cruz’s Canadian citizenship to the Texas senator, the MSNBCer provided no evidence to back up his insulting claim. One wonders if such hateful commentary from an MSNBC employee would be tolerated …

18 Responses to “Birther” is a “hateful insult”

Back during Prohibition people who favored Prohibition were known as “Drys,” and people who opposed Prohibition were known as “Wets.” Neither was considered “hateful”—they were simply short-hand ways of describing the views of their people involved. “Birther” is no more hateful than “Wet” or “Dry.”

Besides, wasn’t there supposed to be a big planned meeting in which the members of that movement all got together in Washington, and wasn’t the name for the planned meeting to have been “The Birther Summit”?

Don’t forget birtherreport.com and that Miki Booth refers to herself as the Birther Princess as compared to Orly Taitz’s contention of being the Queen of the Birthers.

Some of these idiots want to be called truthers or Constitutional Conservatives. Obviously, they do not seek the truth, they want the impossible–to be proven right. And most of them have no idea of what is in the Constitution. I bristle most when they refer to themselves as patriots.

I will continue to call them whatever I want to call them. Perhaps those who find being called a birther so offensive should stop being birthers. Then they would not have to worry about it being an insult.

You know who else thinks the word “birther” is an insult? Joel Pollack, editor-in-chief of breitbart.com. At CPAC this year, he got into an angry shoutfest with someone from Media Matter for America because the MMFA guy wrote an article in which he called Pollack a birther. Pollack said that he is not a birther and that calling him a birther is a smear, for which the MMFA guy should apologize. At 2:05 on this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFyeN_UDT6I he says, “You called me a birther. Now, that is a smear and I invite you to correct, retract, and publicly apologize right here and now.”

I wonder if the Breitbart people regret not getting on the birther bandwagon in 2009. I think it has proven to be far more resilient than they thought it would be. Of course, birtherism is pure BS, but honesty isn’t one of Breitbart’s strong points. I think birtherism might have taken off and been able to hurt Obama if lunatic Orly Taitz had not been the movement’s most high-profile person in 2009.

A lot of the Vatellian birthers try to reject the name as well (saying it refers only to those who doubt President Obama was born in Hawai’i). My rule of thumb is that if you are willing to accept President Obama’s eligibility, then you aren’t a birther, but if you think that he is ineligible due to the circumstances of his birth… that’s a different story.

I have observed that humans often exhibit virulent, overblown hostility toward what they know deep down to be true, but cannot accept. Those secure in their correctness generally don’t demonize their adversaries, but rather mock them if they reject reason.

Slartibartfast:
A lot of the Vatellian birthers try to reject the name as well (saying it refers only to those who doubt President Obama was born in Hawai’i).My rule of thumb is that if you are willing to accept President Obama’s eligibility, then you aren’t a birther, but if you think that he is ineligible due to the circumstances of his birth… that’s a different story.

Ive seen a lot of “vatellian birthers” who reject the word. Once you get them talking long enough though they start devolving into the usual birther memes.

I guess my question would how could the NOT be birthers if they insist on misreading Vatel? Since that is the sole reason for relying on it in the first place in that it appears, if you only read the parts that agree with you, to shore up a faulty assumption. It still boils down to denial and hypocrisy when all is said and done. Vatel very inconveniently didn’t say what they so very badly want him to have said, adn they are not intellectually honest enough to admit it.

Dr Kenneth noisewater: Ive seen a lot of “vatellian birthers” who reject the word. Once you get them talking long enough though they start devolving into the usual birther memes.

roxy7655:
I have observed that humans often exhibit virulent, overblown hostility toward what they know deep down to be true, but cannot accept.Those secure in their correctness generally don’t demonize their adversaries, but rather mock them if they reject reason.

You’re absolutely right, Roxy! And, since I’m talking to an intelligent copy machine, I note that this phenomena of hating inconvenient truth, is similar to the uncanny valley. It’s a powerful theme in many areas of human thought, and evident in vitriolic infighting in social groups. That 90% agreement is more repugnant than 60% agreement is more repugnant than 10% agreement must seems completely nonsensical to a machine, eh, Roxy?

I usually refer to the vattellites as Still-Birthers. The whole vattel nonsense came about after Obama showed the short form and birthers had no objections to it other than claiming it was fake. The whole born in Kenya narrative had no steam based on its complexity and thus they went about searching for anything to use as a backup plan. The misreading of Vattel in conjunction with Minor V Happersett provided the goal post moving that they desperately needed.

Notorial Dissent: I guess my question would how could the NOT be birthers if they insist on misreading Vatel? Since that is the sole reason for relying on it in the first place in that it appears, if you only read the parts that agree with you, to shore up a faulty assumption. It still boils down to denial and hypocrisy when all is said and done. Vatel very inconveniently didn’t say what they so very badly want him to have said, adn they are not intellectually honest enough to admit it.

I’ve been making this very point ad nauseam and I’m sad to say, totally unsuccessfully with folks like Apuzzo, Brooke Paige, etc.

In Apuzzo’s case I have my doubts that he isn’t purposefully misreading Vattel to boost a wider, racist political agenda.

roxy7655: I have observed that humans often exhibit virulent, overblown hostility toward what they know deep down to be true, but cannot accept. Those secure in their correctness generally don’t demonize their adversaries, but rather mock them if they reject reason.

roxy, I completely agree. Blogs such as those listed in The Ugly section of this blog contain many demands that “Obots” be imprisoned, deported, tortured, and killed. In blogs like Doc’s and those listed in the The Good section contain comments mocking birthers and their attempts to twist reality.

Welcome

Obama Conspiracy Theories since 2008 has been your des­tination for conspiracy theories and fringe views about Barack Obama. Having an argu­ment with your buddies at the office? You're in the right place. Check out our featured articles. If you don't agree with what you see, feel free to add your thoughts to the over 225,000 comments others have left. To leave a comment not on the current articles, visit the Open Thread.

Conspiracies

Sometimes people leave comments designed to offend or outrage the reader, and invoke a firestorm of protest in response. These are the Internet trolls. Replying to them is feeding them and they will come back for more. Refusing to play their game encourages them to go away.